On a cold December morning in 2017, a pair of friends were sitting in a parking garage on the edge of a busy stretch of Brooklyn.
“We’ve got this big flat track,” one of them said.
“There’s a couple of people who come up and they have a flat-track there.
They want to run it.
We can rent it for $1,500.”
They had just been hired to build a new flat track in Brooklyn’s uptown neighborhoods, a project that would ultimately be the beginning of what would become a booming career for an upstate New Yorker.
But the flat track was an unusual one.
It was an upstart, a fledgling startup in the nascent upstate market, and it had been built by a single, relatively unknown American, named Anthony Pritchard.
For most of his life, Pritcher had operated a small company that specialized in the construction of small, dirt trackways in the city.
The company, Prensky Associates, had been founded in the 1950s by a young man named Anthony M. Pritchel, who had earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from Harvard in 1958 and spent a year working in a Manhattan shoe factory.
At that point, Pritch had decided to pursue a career in the shoe industry.
Pritch and his wife, Carol, had built up their business with a successful, if small, shoe supply chain that included a small store in the Bronx and a clothing store in New York City.
But in the early 1960s, as Pritche became the face of the nascent Upstate Flat Track Association, he became the target of a brutal, years-long campaign by the anti-flat track movement that claimed that Pritches shoes were dangerous and dangerous to wear, that they caused asthma, and that they were the cause of the deaths of many of the company’s employees.
Priches Shoes became a focal point of the anti–flat track campaign.
Pregnant women who tried to run the company could be arrested.
Pretaxes who worked in the factory could be fired.
Prys shoes were outlawed.
The factory workers who worked on the flats themselves were harassed and physically assaulted.
Pried by the media and by their employers, Prys employees eventually settled out of court for a whopping $4.7 million.
But that money did not cover the damages Prits shoe companies had suffered from the boycott.
In 1974, Pregay, a small New York company, was sued by Pritchers workers and their families for $50 million.
It became the most famous case of a FlatTrack boycott, the one that became known as Prys.
After Pritkes lawsuit, Priche filed for bankruptcy and sold off its stock.
Today, Prisons is a small, privately held company that has become one of the most recognizable names in the flat-tracked industry.
It’s been owned and operated by a few hundred people since 1975, and its stock is now valued at more than $500 million.
The FlatTrack movement has been around for decades.
It began as a protest movement in the mid-1970s to get the government to stop making flat-trail shoes for women and girls.
Then, in 1980, the FlatTrack Association was founded to promote the Flat Track as a trail for the urban poor and to create a network of flat-tracks around the country.
The association’s mission has evolved to include the advancement of flat track construction, and the organization is responsible for overseeing the construction, marketing, and advertising of new flat tracks.
The group’s main office is in New Orleans, Louisiana, but it has expanded into other parts of the country, including Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, and West Virginia.
Flat Track Flat Track, Inc. is the company that Prys was sued over in 1974, and is the parent company of Prys Shoes.
The flat track is one of several things that Pries is famous for, like his signature shoes that he designed in the 1960s for the U.S. Olympic team and his signature leather jacket.
He also created a logo that became iconic to upstate FlatTrackers.
And then, in 1981, Pries Shoes sued Pritch’s company for $5.5 million for breach of contract, alleging that Pritch failed to provide enough wages to his employees for the first year of the FlatTracks construction.
Pries’ lawsuit against Pritclys shoes company, however, was a little more unusual than the others.
Instead of a lawsuit against the company, the lawsuit focused on the company itself, claiming that Pits shoes were unsafe and dangerous.
The suit, filed in a New York court in 1980 and unsealed in 2017 by a federal judge, claimed that in addition to the $50-million in damages, Pits owed $200,000 in back wages to workers who were laid off because they refused to work in